To be annoyed that ignorant prejudice stays but..

[seeker]

...but an ironic piss take is deleted?

I'm try to find the alleged "prejudice" thread, chill out and get a grip of ya'sen

Didn't see either thread, but is it possible someone genuinely isn't glued to MN like we are and doesn't get it?

I hate the 'being educated' rubbish too. I'm really sick of being told it's absolutely fine so long as we all reply nicely and patiently and explain why it's wrong to be racist/misogynistic/disablist/whatever.

Does it actually not occur to HQ that every time they put forward that argument, they imply that it's actually fine to be racist, misogynistic and disablist on here? Because that is what it implies. Whereas if we respond angrily, we get deleted. As if anger isn't a rational response to bigotry.

I agree. If the original thread had said "blacks" or "gays" or "people in wheelchairs" or any other protected characteristic it would have gone.

And the "she's being educated" reasoning is just nonsense. It does, as LRD says, imply that it's OK to be discriminatory.

Afternoon,

We have been keeping an eye on the other thread that you refer to. We were able to see that the OP has been challenged on her views throughout the thread, which was why we have allowed it to stand for the moment.

Of course it's not fine to be racist, misogynistic or disablist on here, but we do look at each thread on a thread by thread basis.

But "educating" was the thing that caused so much hurt and distress to the posters who complained about disablist terms, was it not, Julie? In which case, can you explain, please, why it's OK in the context of older people?

I don't think the being educated thing is nonsense really.

It's good to see prejudices challenged. Even if it makes just once person change the way they think/behave, then it's been worthwhile leaving the thread there.

People have a right to be breathtakingly ignorant, even if we don't like it.

In that case, Worra, it needs to stand for everything - misogynistic, disablist, racist, ageist, every type of discriminatory behaviour it should be allowed.

...but it's ok to discrimate against older people....ok......but remeber we will all be old one day, let's hope attitudes change

Exactly hobnobs.

It wouldn't be allowed to have a thread with that title about gays or disabled people or people from a particular ethnic group, so why is it allowed about old people?

But, Julie, why is it ok to allow prejudice if it's challenged?

Your rules say that discriminatory comments and PAs will not be tolerated. But it sounds as if you're now saying, if people challenge prejudice, you'll reward posters of such comments by letting their threads stand. And you'll punish the people who were upset by these discriminatory comments by leaving the thread up.

It's not just one or two threads, this seems to be a new policy and I don't understand how it fits with the site guidelines at all.

Sorry mnhq but you would have deleted any thread like that about any other vulnerable group.

Julie

Talk guidelines say

"No posts that break the law". Don't you think that thread breaks the provisions of the Equality Act then?

Guidelines also say

" That said, we will remove posts we consider to contain personal attacks, to break the law and/or to be obscene, racist, sexist, disablist or homophobic ? once they are brought to our attention." - again, age is a protected characteristic in the same way that these are. Why is it not delete-worthy?

I'm genuinely confused as to what the policy is.

Excellent post freddiem

Well, I agree with looking on a thread by thread basis.

That being the case, Seeker's thread satirising the first should have stayed and anyone complaining about it should have it pointed out to them that if they can't recognise satire then perhaps this isn't the board for them.

imho

MNHQ actually don't always delete racist, sexist or disablist posts or OPs. I totally agree they should be as firmly against ageism as any of these characteristics, I just think there is a bigger issue that they keep saying it's ok to break guidelines so long as someone is 'educating'.

In that case, LRD, I'm even more confused as to what the policy is.

We've taken your comments on board and have acted accordingly. We do, on occasion, make the wrong call and we hold our hands up on this one.

?

Thank you Julie.

and ?

Is there any chance the guidelines could be amended to include age?

We'll get back to you on this.

@FreddieMisaGREATshag

Thank you Julie.

and ?

Is there any chance the guidelines could be amended to include age?

Thank you.

Thanks Julie.

Have a . Or is it gin, at this point in the thread?

Agree about amending the guidelines re age.

Gin? No, it's too early.

@LRDtheFeministDragon

Thanks Julie.

Have a . Or is it gin, at this point in the thread?

Never too early for gin.

[usually by now I am well into a post-church sherry. only reason I go. ]

Tut tut.

I'm sure one of the guidelines is '... and MNHQ staff shall be permitted to have virtual gin at all hours of the day, while on duty ...'.

I would also like to see the guidelines amended for age.